Slashdot Mirror
Empathy Represses Analytic Thought, and Vice Versa
hessian sends this quote from a Case Western Reserve University news release:
"New research shows a simple reason why even the most intelligent, complex brains can be taken by a swindler's story – one that upon a second look offers clues it was false. When the brain fires up the network of neurons that allows us to empathize, it suppresses the network used for analysis, a pivotal study led by a Case Western Reserve University researcher shows (abstract). ... At rest, our brains cycle between the social and analytical networks. But when presented with a task, healthy adults engage the appropriate neural pathway, the researchers found. The study shows for the first time that we have a built-in neural constraint on our ability to be both empathetic and analytic at the same time. The work suggests that established theories about two competing networks within the brain must be revised. More, it provides insights into the operation of a healthy mind versus those of the mentally ill or developmentally disabled."
Just swap empathetic with emotional (Yeah different, but related definitions.) and all I have to do is look/listen to my spouse in the morning to see what wife I will spend the day with.
If she is overly emotional, no amount of logic or analysis with help with anything. It's gonna be a rough day for me.
If she is overly analytical of what I do or say, there is nothing I can do or say, even gifts of chocolate, will not sway her from her incorrect analysis of my mistakes.
Women, you can;t live with 'em.
(Posting as AC becuace my spouse reads slashdot and this post will cause her to fly off the handle.)
I think this explains why conversations on facebook back when I used to have an account were ridiculous stupid and conversations on /. are usually well above room temp IQ but perhaps lacking in some civility.
FB: "Boo hoo I think I'm catchcing a cold, ironically; I can't figure the first derivative of 1/x"
FB: Oh you poor baby lets play farmville together till you feel better, have you tried aromatherapy yet for the cold?
/. : "Boo hoo I think I'm catchcing a cold, ironically; I can't figure the first derivative of 1/x"
/. : "You Fing idiot you can't even spell catching, don't know what irony is, and if you could spell google correctly instead of spelling it as /., you'd see its -1/x^2"
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I think your proof falls apart with your first statement "Rational analysis will lead to better outcomes than emotionally driven behavior." This might be evidence of the opposite. That empathic behavior is more likely to get you laid and produce children than rational behavior.
See all of you kept crying about how all our C?O and Political leaders are psychopaths were wrong. You should be happy about that. They are better at thinking than you are and no doubt producing more optimal solutions than you could.
Thank goodness we have these unfeeling psychopaths to lead us.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Actually if you note their campaigning methods you'll see that they spend most of their time attempting to play to emotions rather than facts and logic. It is no coincidence that their talking points focus on issues more likely to provoke a visceral reaction in the public such as religion, abortion, don't tread on me, and military/defense.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Well, except that it doesn't.
If it were as you suggest, emotional, non-rational appeals to tradition, religious values, nationalism, etc., would be particularly ineffective in motivating conservatives. In the real world, both groups are diverse and include both more-analytical and and more-emotional thinkers. There are plenty of studies showing indications of various cognitive differences between conservatives and liberals, but the particular one you suggest isn't one of them.
Conservatives, so the old tradition went, have heads but no hearts. Liberals have hearts, but no heads.
Somehow, somewhere, something went terribly wrong.
Kids are gendered from birth onwards. I have a little cousin being reared in the house next to mine, and he's treated roughly (not painfully, just roughly) because "he's a boy and he needs to be tough". He's only 6 months old. If that's the kind of conditioning he's receiving, of course he'll be a rough and tumble terror when he's a toddler. He's also encouraged, at 6 months old, to exert himself and roughly handle/break things. I don't think he'd be encouraged to do such things if he were a female.
If you look at some rhetorical theory (ie, theory of rhetoric), you'll find that there are three main kinds of arguments, which are effective against three different categories of people.
Amongst your supporters, logical arguments have the most significant impact.
Amongst the undecided, emotional arguments are more likely to sway their decision.
Amongst your opponents, moral arguments are just about the only thing that can have any effect.
Ask yourself who they're trying to win votes from when they campaign, and I think you'll have the answer as to why it's all full of emotional arguments.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
The "spock" tag has been deprecated in favor of the less implementation-specific "eyebrow" tag. Optionally use the "height" attribute with the following values: spock, jeeves, therock, connery, or scully.
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Why do you assume that? If anything a rational person would better understand the concept of the greater good than an empathically driven person.
It's not about understanding the concept, it's about subscribing to it.
For example, you can rationally understand that cooperation from individuals can lead to increased success of the species. However, rationally, why is the survival of the species important to you? Why is anything that happens after you are dead important to you? You're not going to be there to see it, or to experience it, or to suffer from the consequences. The only thing you have to tell you that it would be bad to selfishly care only about your own well-being at the expense of others is by putting yourself in their shoes. In other words, empathy.
It's much more subtle than I make it sound, and I've noticed it with a lot of parents, with boys you see it with their fathers, girls, their mothers. Gender policing is something innate and automatic to most people, and many people don't realize they're doing it, they just think their children magically acquire these traits out of the ether, and so jump to conclusions about gender that don't have all the data.
Do that many people give a shit or have feelings for strangers they happen across / first meetings?
Yes they do, it's instinctive behavior for most primates, and the more the stranger looks and acts like a member of your "tribe" the more empathy they get. But who's talking about strangers? - This finding goes a long way to explaining why I tolerated my ex-wife for 20yrs. ;)
Empathy travels in both directions, although I suspect your question was rhetorical, the fact that you asked it reduces the initial empathy I had for you. This is probably because at 53 I'm the "silverback" of my own little tribe and subconsciously judge you as a prospective associate from a similar tribe. Competition for resources (particularly territorial resources) dictates nobody can have the same level of empathy towards everyone but the tribe is always looking for social/political alliances to boost their standing in the neighborhood. You can see the same thing at work in the royal families of Europe both past and present, they were so busy using their children to seal territorial alliances that many of their descendants now suffer complications from inbreeding. In many ways our brains simply were not built to handle the civilizations we create, for example most of my tribe live more than an hour's drive away. Excluding my parents my own tribal elders live on the other side of the planet and are more or less strangers to me. I can't even name all my Uncles and Aunt's, I just know I had ~20 of them somewhere in the UK, I've met a few and a few are already dead. As a child these people were replaced by adult neighbors and family friends, in fact back then children were expected to address adult family friends as "Uncle" or "Aunt" as a sign of respect, similar as to how US kids today address adults as "Sir", etc.
Citation: The Monkeysphere
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.